No. It means that they violate copyright law because they didn't conform to the GPL terms. If it's true, they are illegally distributing the software called: DOSbox.

It doesn't mean any code of the old DOS iD games has to be released. Only modifications they might have made to DOSbox will have to be made public.

It's due to the work of the DOSbox creators that VALVe and iD can sell their old software and people can enjoy it. Yet the DOSbox creators don't get any credit for their work. And that is a major shame.

This sort of thing isn't always on purpose. Some people think "open source" means they can use the code however they please. Programmers aren't always license experts. It seems so simple to us because we are around these terms on slashdot constantly, but there have been times where I made assumptions about close source code licenses that could have gotten me into the same trouble. The legal department doesn't review every single decision in an organization and its possible legal implications. It could have been a few guys that just didn't understand the GPL and it was missed because it wasn't the largest project in the company. Not defending them, but not everyone understands "open source" isn't the same as public domain.

This sort of thing isn't always on purpose. Some people think "open source" means they can use the code however they please.

John Carmack understands perfectly what the GPL is all about, and surely nobody needs to be reminded what a huge contributer he is to open source and open standards. Certainly an oversight and public humiliation is not in order.

You're right, and I'm 100% certain that John did all the packaging of the old games himself, by hand, using DEBUG on an 8086 and monochrome screen.

In reality, this was a business deal between id and Valve, and id probably handed over the playable binaries, and Value handed them to a small group to prepare for distribution and installation over Steam. So rather than blaming id, or claiming Valve did this with evil intent, let us combine two very powerful pieces of wisdom, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence," and Occam's razor. It is most easily assumed that when Valve handed off the data to be packaged, the worked had the best of intentions by using DOSbox, but was inadequately informed about it's proper use and redistribution.

Yeah, I went to his keynote Friday night; there were a lot of technical questions, and at the same time a lot of questions about steam, etc. At one point someone asked him about porting Doom to Steam and he flat out said "wow, that's pretty cool, I hadn't heard about that yet, but it seems neat".... He's very much on the research side of things and made it very clear that while he's still the posterboy for iD, he has very little control or even desire to muck about with marketing and corperate politics, though at the same time he also said that they were very proud of their decision to ultimately open source everything, and have made many design decisions in the past that have limited them because they wouldn't then be able to open source fully at a later point (he also pointed out that at some point in the future, iD tech 5 would become open source, too).

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence," and Occam's razor.
Unfortunately, copyright infringement is often strict liability; in other words, no finding of intent is required.

How about a slap on the wrist? Come on, given Carmack's contributions [wikipedia.org] to free software, it's an even more silly blunder. Especially nowadays that everybody's wound up about the GPL. He's gotta bear at least a token chide.

How this plays out depends on id/Valve's reaction, I guess. A simple apology is all it takes for this to be forgotten in no time.

That you can see the source code. Nothing more, nothing less. This is the literal definition, and the one most normal people (as well as MS) subscribe to.

Microsoft makes it a point to use the term "Shared Source". There is no "literal definition" for such an ill-defined term. You can accept OSI's definition, since they have done all the marketing of that term and it has a lot of mindshare, or you can accept that people interpret it differently, in which case nearly anything goes, including public domain.

That it means the same thing as "Free Software" -- i.e., licensed in such a way to preserve freedom -- except that it may or may not be copyleft. This is the OSI definition.

Now that is complete bullshit. The OSI definition of open source does not "preserve freedom". It fully supports licenses that let derived versions become closed source -- like the BSD license.

In neither case does it mean "public domain,"

Your 0/3. Public domain qualifies as "open source" as defined by the OSI. The OSI meaning of open source is an umbrella one, that includes the GPL, BSD, public domain, etc.

This sort of thing isn't always on purpose. Some people think "open source" means they can use the code however they please. Programmers aren't always license experts. It seems so simple to us because we are around these terms on slashdot constantly, but there have been times where I made assumptions about close source code licenses that could have gotten me into the same trouble. The legal department doesn't review every single decision in an organization and its possible legal implications. It could have

It seems so simple to us because we are around these terms on slashdot constantly

It's not simple at all. Start a discussion here about under what circumstances you do or do not need to distribute source and you'll still get a 20 post long thread with people going back and forth about who's right and who's wrong, debating what the words used in the license mean, etc.

That wasn't a very expert flame. You should have called him a dog bothering bucket of lard with a face like a crash-test chimpanzee, less brains than a road killed possum and smelling about as bad as one too. Also he loves Hitler.

Can't believe this hasn't been pointed out yet but neither iD nor Valve are exactly garage enterprises. These are pretty big companies and you know, I find it really hard to believe that this never went past a lawyer. Programmers don't have to know anything at all about licenses and stuff like that because that's what the rest of the company is for.

I can't believe I had to read down this far for this issue to come up. I wouldn't expect that a project done at a company the size of ID would let something like this slip by without anyone saying anything. Then again, maybe some of the developers did say something, and their managers just told them to shut up or find another job. Maybe this really was just some small project, that only a few people worked on. If they had all the source code for the games, and are just running everything on DOSBox, then

Can't believe this hasn't been pointed out yet but neither iD nor Valve are exactly garage enterprises. These are pretty big companies and you know, I find it really hard to believe that this never went past a lawyer. Programmers don't have to know anything at all about licenses and stuff like that because that's what the rest of the company is for.

Only modifications they might have made to DOSbox will have to be made public.

Please let's get away from this thinking that you can automatically patch up a GPL violation by releasing your modified source code later.

When you violate the GPL, you immediately lose your license to the GPL'ed code and you are liable for your past and future license violations. You cannot make up for that past violation by coming into compliance, and you cannot restore your license to use the code under the GPL license by coming into compliance.

What that liability entails is something that you can negotiate with the authors about, and if you don't reach an agreement, it's for the courts to decide. Theoretically, if the GPL violation is egregious enough, a court might well hand control over other corporate assets, including unrelated software, to the author of the GPL'ed software.

Many GPL authors will be nice and permit you to remedy past GPL violations by coming into compliance, and they may also grant you permission to use the software under the GPL. But all of that is at their sole discretion.

Interesting! I'd like to think that this particular case was an inadvertent error that can and will be quickly remedied. There doesn't seem to be any indication that copy.txt and author.txt were omitted in an act of bad faith, although we'll find out soon enough.So, in a worst case scenario, if non-compliance were due to a technical glitch (say, copy.txt was corrupted), what are the legal ramifications? What if the technical glitch was corrected in a day? In an hour?

You cannot make up for that past violation by coming into compliance, and you cannot restore your license to use the code under the GPL license by coming into compliance.

I think the GP post is unusually bloodthirsty. If what he says (and I quoted) is true, then if an intern at IBM accidentally omits the COPYING file from a minor patch then IBM better be closing its illegal GPL enterprise, quickly! Or maybe it can weasel out of that for a million billion dollars per developer wronged. I think that is a ver

"When you violate the GPL, you immediately lose your license to the GPL'ed code and you are liable for your past and future license violations. You cannot make up for that past violation by coming into compliance, and you cannot restore your license to use the code under the GPL license by coming into compliance."

Right. Which is why companies caught by projects like gplviolations usually give a "voluntary donation" to a free software project in addition to moving into compliance.

Also, since it appears DOSBox is under the GPL and not the LGPL, this WOULD require the source code of these games (as well as graphics, audio and any other components distributed along with DOSBox) to be publicly released. (That whole "viral" thing people talk about)

No, it would only require them to provide the source for their modified DOSBox.

The GPL is clear that using a Free program to execute or operate on proprietary data leaves the data under its original ownership and licensing.

"You can choose not to accept it, and pay the original authors compensation for your use, if you'd rather not follow the terms."

If they'll accept your money.

In this case I bet the answer would be "yes" but I can think of others where the answer most certainly would be "we don't want your money, use our software under the terms of the GPL or don't use it alt all".-nB

Well that's misleading. If you don't accept the terms of the GPL, you have to acquire a separate license from the authors on their terms (if they are even willing to license it under non-GPL terms). It isn't like you can just choose to throw money at the problem to make it go away. If the authors aren't willing to grant you a non-GPL license, then any use in violation of the GPL is piracy.

Considering the number of copies they've distributed, and the statutory damages that people like the RIAA have managed to get put in place, it looks like DOSBox development is going to be very well funded for the next few years...

There already a handful of international groups that all they do is try and help with GPL enforcement. However, according to US copyright law, the actual person(s) would would need to handle the enforcement by way of trial would be the one(s) who own the copyright on DOSBox, and then licensed it via the GPL. Now of course, this could also potentially come from any of the subsequent authors or forks of the project as well, even those who redistribute it like the organizations behind various Linux distros. Bu

I'd guess the license files (and other text files distributed with dosbox) were never copied to the final location in the first place. They probably just unpacked/installed dosbox once, then copied the minimum number of files required to get their own software to run to the relevant location. I've certainly done this sort of thing with GPL'd binaries and libraries (like gzip or the cygwin dll), but not for re-distribution - publishers need to be more careful! From other posts in the forums, it looks like th

"I can't see how it could be an oversight. "A better question would be why would they do it intently?Id has often released their old game engines under the GPL.1. They had noting to gain by not including the license files.2. They fixed it as soon as they found they had left out the files.3. They did no harm to anyone.

So why must you try to see evil when all the evidence points to a simple human error?

This is why GPL zealots get on my nerves. They are all for copyleft, they hate closes source licenses, they hate software patents, and they hate DRM. But if someone fails to cross every t and dot every i when distributing GPL code then they are are plotting villains.

They made a minor error and they fixed the error all before it even showed up on Slashdot.

Thats what happens when one company signs a deal with another - they get to set up their own licensing rules. Valve probably paid id a whole bunch of money back when they started re-licensing HalfLife tech. At that point, they probably removed the license notices as if they were reselling it, they must have had rights to do so.

Um... I think you may be mistaking the GPL for something it's not. The GPL does not state that you must make your program open source. It only states that if you modify anything protected under said license, you have to publish those changes. This does not include your own privately protected source.

Your mistaken too.1. executables/binaries/object code distributed must have an offer to have a verbatim copy of the source code used to build that object code. this offer must be made available for at least 3 years.

2. the source you make available must include a copy of the GPL

Common misconceptions:

1. people assume GPL forces you to put anything you link to it into GPL as well. This is not the case, it just means you cannot distribute your changes. If you do, then you can be taken to court, but you can neve

What? The GPL states you need to provide the source to code you're distributing, otherwise they have no right. They haven't done that.See: "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whethergratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights thatyou have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get thesource code. And you must show them these terms so they know theirrights."

and "3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in obje

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

They're not required to do subsection a), which you quoted, just one of the three. But since they may just be including as opposed to selling Dosbox, subsection c) may well be acceptable. A lot of GPL'd software comes without the source -- many Linux distros don't include the source, either, but you can still get it. I'm pretty sure my copy of Ubuntu didn't come with source code, and I don't recall seeing an offer to get the source code during the install (but then who pays attention to license terms during an OS install?).

The worst judgement that can be brought against a GPL violator is an injunction preventing further distribution. The GPL does not have any provisions to deny the license to those who have violated it, and so any violators can simply rectify their procedures and continue.

Okay, Valve distributes a copy of the software in violation of the license. It thus runs into: "Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License." So Valve's rights under the license are terminated.So, how does Valve get out of this? Look at: "Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distrib

There is no basis for what you are claiming and I think you are missing the point. First, you can never lose the rights to use the software. Read it yourself [gnu.org]. By design, steam can fix an oversight by simply uploading the license to you when you log in. This isn't the same as a proprietary license, so they can distribute as long as they comply, as there is no court order forcing them to stop. You NEVER need to ask permission to distribute GPL software, outside of a court order banning you.

They don't have to have the code posted anywhere or bundle it with their release. They just have to make it so that, if anyone actually requests it, it is provided to that person. For what it's worth, they could say that they will provide it to the people who request on cd media and charge a nominal fee for the media, shipping, and handling (though that would be sort of silly for something as small as an altered copy of dosbox).

GPL violations aside, there is no need to notify the developers if you intend to use code under GPL.

The only time you'd need to contact the developers is if you want to get an alternative license. Quite often people will release code under GPL and also be prepared to release it under alternative licenses, perhaps for a fee.

That's the point - if you don't see the license files, the next step before crying foul is to ask the developers if they arranged a different license. Since the developers say they hadn't been contacted, it's safe to assume they didn't arrange a different license.

Before anyone jumps on the summary for being incorrect - there is no need to notify a developer when you use or distribute GPL software. However if you want to distribute in violation of the license then there are only two ways:

Get the developer to waive the license (hasn't happened according to summary, which was worth mentioning as it means the only option is (2))

Pile a huge stack of cash in a vault to pay off copyright violation damages

The third option, which isn't usually available when you screw up with non-free software, is to apologise really fast and comply with the GPL*. Although there are no guarantees free software developers are usually nice folks who can overlook a mistake.

It is one reason why all the 'viral' fud about the GPL is so annoying (not that it applies to this case, as there is no derivative product, but it usually rears it's ugly head in these threads). All the GPL does is give you an Option Three which isn't usually available - you would be in court for damages instead of sitting across a table from a bunch of altrustic techies seeking a negotiated solution.

*Historically stopping distribution and rewriting the offending module usually is an option too, depending on how antagonistic you were before admitting your mistake.

The third option, which isn't usually available when you screw up with non-free software, is to apologise really fast and comply with the GPL*. Although there are no guarantees free software developers are usually nice folks who can overlook a mistake.

So, just to be clear: you do need to notify the developer once you have failed to comply with the GPL and then want to fix your mistake; by default, you simply lose all rights to the GPL'ed software if you fail to comply with the license, and only the copyrigh

'Option 3' has nothing to do with the GPL and everything to do with the typical attitude of open source programmers. You'll find the same attitude in programmers under BSD, MPL, and probably just about any other Open Source (officially sanctioned or not) license.The 'viral FUD' about the GPL isn't FUD simply because there ARE nice programmers, but because there are those who AREN'T. GPL is viral whether you like it or not. The ability to work out another arrangement does -not- change this in the slightes

I don't really know why ID are being blamed for this, since Valve is the distributor. Unlike ID, who gave us GPL'd Doom, Quake, etc, Valve gave us DRM'd Half Life, and deserve no sympathy when they get caught infringing copyright.

There is much better windows doom ports that can fully run that game and ID even has there own win32 port of doom. Also the low screen res of that game will look real bad on new big screen LCD or CRT. Even the old win32 doom port at a max of 640x480 will look better.

It would be too time-consuming to evaluate the third-party Doom / Hexen ports to determine which would work best for the overwhelming number of system configurations on which Steam will run, and most users would want as authentic an experience as possible. Evaluating newer ports for security problems, flaws in feature implementation, or bugs that only appear on some hardware configuration would also be time-consuming and expensive for a QA department. It would be simplest to make DOSbox cooperate with Ste

Small oversight by (on id's part) a hugely prolific developer of GPL'd software. Easily corrected and pushed out to clients straight away.

id is a nice company, but the license is the license. You can't "easily correct" GPL violations: once you screw up, the GPL doesn't apply to you anymore, no matter what you do. The only way to fix that is to get permission from each and every copyright holder. Pointing that out isn't "divisive trolling", it's simply the facts about the GPL.

The GPL isn't signed off on -- if you don't use it, you've broken Copyright law by distributing the software. You have no right to DOS Box, nor does ID software unless they abide by the GPL. They don't forfeit any rights -- they had none to begin with, that's the whole point of the GPL.Now will anyone sue them for it? That's the key. In this case if ID Software says "oops" and corrects the mistake, I seriously doubt the Copyright holder will get very upset with them, but the GP is right in that you have

You are correct, but that's a whole different point than the GPs. The GP said that if you violate the GPL, your bridges are burned forever and ever, amen. You can't make it right, you can't fix it. One simple mistake and you are done forever.

However, there's absolutely NOTHING the GPL that says that at all. The GPL is pretty straightforward, really: If you abide by our terms, you can distribute. If you don't abide, you have no right to distribute. Valve/ID are now abiding by the terms**, so they can distribute. Case closed.

Because of their Steam technology, they were even able to retroactively distribute the copy of the GPL to everyone they had already distributed the software to. That makes them fully compliant with every distribution they've done. Case beaten like a dead horse.

** (This is assuming that Valve/ID will honor requests for the source code, of which I've not heard a yea or nay on.)

Rather than derision id should be given thanks for further showing the usefulness of GPL'd software!

Previously id has shown how to encourage the longevity of your brand by releasing the code under a permissive license, and now id is providing an example of how to effectively utilize other's GPL'd software.

And, as noted by other posters, this is old news. The oversight has already been corrected.

Steam now has a reason to be ported to Linux. A lot of the new id games added to Steam play natively on Linux, there are others that use DOSbox, which conveniently works on Linux as well. If Valve ports Steam to Linux... it'd open the door for Linux users to easily buy and play these games, and I'm sure enough people would such that it makes business sense for them to do it.

DosBox is not configured well, it runs 320x200 games in a kind of widescreen. I've been able to use DosBox to run DOS 320x200 games (some of them in the package) with the correct aspect ratio. Anyway. The real problem is that the DOS games come without their setup.exe files and are configured not to use wave blaster/general midi. Whatever, just grab gzdoom or something and everything's well again:). Anyway, The package's great, it has Hexen II and Quake 1,2,3 including the mission packs (Win32 versions all of them). Also, the Master Levels. Good stuff.

Hate to reply my own comments, but I forgot something. Check out the weird way TNT and Plutonia are handled in the package. The original DOS exe picks up Plutonia as the main IWAD and since the publishers chose for some reason to put both IWAD-s in the same directory, TNT is launched with -file tnt.wad. Anybody who's done some development in the area will tell you that's not a great idea, passing an IWAD as -file to another IWAD. Anyway, it works, that used to be the way sprite-containing PWADs worked - deu

Correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't the GPL stipulate that you only need to give away source code when you MODIFY the original, there by copying left? merely distributing the original unmodified achieves nothing.

No, GPL requires that if you _distribute_ the binary (no matter whether modified or not) you must provide the source code.
Now if you modify the code then you distribute the resulting software, what happens is that the changes you made are also under the GPL.

Just downloaded the pack. It's using a modified, binary-only dosbox. They have added the license and thanks.txt back, however, it still is infringing.

I copied dosbox.exe to a seperate directory, and it complained about missing SDL dlls. Using stock SDL dlls, it says "Failed to find steam". As such, they are distributing a modified binary-only version of a GPL application. Given the distribution has already happened, they are legally obligated to distribute the source code to the steam "stub" present in their dosbox application. Failing that, they are guilty of some serious copyright infringment, and statutory damages can be huge.

I suspect it wouldn't look good in court having a very large, well-known software company stealing code from little guys, and using it as the foundation for a significant commercial project. This also makes it look willfull, as opposed to accidental infringement. Furthermore, given iD's technology licensing platform, which includes significant GPL distribution, they would have a hard time claiming ignorance.

Given the distribution has already happened, they are legally obligated to distribute the source code to the steam "stub" present in their dosbox application. Failing that, they are guilty of some serious copyright infringment, and statutory damages can be huge.

*sighs*

No, they are not obligated to distribute the source. They violated a copyright license. Now they can be sued by the copyright owners.

The owners might be content with Valve releasing the source for their modified version, and they might not.

I had wondered about this. This warrants further investigation.Steam applications all include some copy protection code that involves communicating with the main Steam.exe program: this is most visible in games that weren't designed for Steam, such as Defcon or one of the Popcap games. Like them, Dosbox must have been modified to include this copy protection code.

This is right at the heart of this licence discussion and I am very glad someone has spotted it. Will Valve licence Dosbox under a non-free licenc

These game companies produce proprietary software and take strong measures against copying and copyright infringement. Why do you think it is unreasonable to expect them to comply with other people's software licenses?

They could have complied with the GPL easily, by bundling the DOSBox sources (or a notice saying that they would be supplied on request for a reasonable fee). Or, they could have developed their own DOS emulator.

This is not a GPL violation, it's a copyright law violation. They distributed a product that they did not have the right to distribute. I wonder how well they would take it if the DOSBox team decided to distribute Half Life 2 to a few thousand people - probably not very well. The fact that there was a non-discriminatory license available for free is irrelevant. A proprietary software company decided not to respect the copyrights of a piece of software, and distributed it without a license. Considering Valve's fondness for DRM, I wonder if they subscribe to the 'if it's not bolted down' philosophy...

And this sort of thing is the reason companies are afraid of GPL.
Back in reality, silly things like this are ignored because someone notices the mistake, fixes the problem, the authors of the original software are fine with it because it was a silly mistake that MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO ANYONE OTHER THAN PEOPLE PRETENDING TO BE LAWYERS.
On the other hand, now big companies that could help make GPL'd software more common to the everyday user are now more afraid of using it. Why should they, its cheaper to pay for commercial software than to deal with all the bad press that can come from an honest mistake made by a bunch of raving GPL fanboys.
Yes, I'm more than slightly annoyed with this kind of license bullshit.

All Valve needs to do is fix the problem. In most cases, if a company distributes software without the owners permission, there would be a lawsuit, followed by money changing hands. In this case, all we have so far is a few forum posts.

All Valve needs to do do to fix the problem (like so many other companies have done before) is to obey the GPL requirements, nothing else. I don't see how this can be worse than the threat of lawsuits and other stuff that normally happens. So please chill!

You fucking piece of shit bearded GNU freak. As more and more of these GPL fiasco stories come up the more companies are learning to avoid the GPL quagmire.

Many other licenses for Free works, including the BSD license, the X11 license, and the Creative Commons licenses, require that the text of the license and the list of authors be included in binary distributions.

Agreed (although I'm guessing this one is Valve's fault). I wrote that because the troll I responded to was doing a "iD gets trapped by viral GPL" thing. I just thought I would point those three things out for anyone who didn't know beforehand (although I'm sure that troll either did or didn't care).

The problem is that DOSBox is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (aka GPL). This license is the foundation for the vast majority of open source software, and explicitly states that if you distribute software under it, you must also redistribute the souce code. Furthermore, as DOSBox appears to be under the GPL and not the LGPL (GNU Lesser/Library General Public License) it would mean that both DOSBox and the game shippi

> it would mean that both DOSBox and the game shipping along with it would be required to release source code.

No. They have not embedded DOSBox into their own code, so the GPL "virus" do not touch their code and do not apply to the games. They are however required to distribute (or offer to distribute) the source code for DOSBox.

Since they distribute DOSBox in binary form they are obligated under the GPL
to make the source to DOSBox available. They are not obligated to provide source for the games since DOSBox is an emulator, which is to say, a kind of interpreter, not a library with which the games are linked. The distribution of both the games and DOSBox on the same medium does not bring the games under the GPL. This is made explicit in the "aggregation" clause of the GPL. See also the GPL FAQ [gnu.org].

You're completely and utterly wrong on games running on DOSBox requiring release under the GPL. That would be like saying that just because a program runs on Linux or runs inside of an open source virtual machine, its source code needs to be released. DOSBox doesn't require you to link to it when programming. This would be mere aggregation, and the GPL, even if it said that the release was required, couldn't be enforced that way due to the limitations of copyright law.I can take any old DOS application and

"The problem is that DOSBox is released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (aka GPL). This license is the foundation for the vast majority of open source software, and explicitly states that if you distribute software under it, you must also redistribute the souce code."

Yes, but why is it a big deal?

The entire library of iD and Valve titles is freely available via BitTorrent. Their copyrights are violated countless times daily. Yet that's certainly not news around here.

The old games are largely written in x86 assembly language. They do not use libraries for interacting with the machine, they issue DOS system calls and [video] BIOS calls directly. Porting them to other platforms would effectively mean re-writing them. You could add an abstraction layer, replacing the low-level calls with library calls, and then write a library that would translate these into something higher-level. Or you could use a generic version of this; a DOS emulator. Doom and Quake were written in a mixture of C and assembly, and the assembly often had fall-back routines. Quake had an abstraction layer long before the open source release, with VESA, DirectDraw, X11 and OpenGL versions.

If you modified the GPL'd code this might apply, but seeing as they're using a standard distribution of DOSbox, it doesn't apply. If they either rewrote DOSbox or integrated the code from DOSbox into the original source code for these games, then yes. But as long as they are using a normal distribution you can download from the developers of DOSbox, nothing special is needed.